BASE FOR SALE AGAIN?!?

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

"OWNER RETIRING"

http://cgi.ebay.com/World-class-TV-and-Film-Production-Complex_W0QQitemZ320460322459QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item4a9cec769b

Second Property For Sale Too?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Amazing-Priced-to-Sell-Nova-Scotia-ocean-front-land_W0QQitemZ320461100523QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLand?hash=item4a9cf855eb

OMBUDSMAN'S PETITION

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

FROM CONCERNED CITIZENS

Dear Reader.... It's now been a few years, but here's the letter to the Ombudsman that started all this...... A simple reading of this document will let you know what to expect in the report when it is released to "Concerned Citizens" in the coming weeks. How our municipal governments deal with their preview will provide telling testimony about the lessons they've learned... if any.... from the exercise!

Sent by fax to : 902-424-6675
May 27, 2007


Mr. Dwight Bishop
Ombudsman, Province of Nova Scotia
5670 Spring Garden Road
Suite 700
P.O. Box 2152
Halifax, NS B3J 3B7


Subject: Complaint Against Department of Economic Development, Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Affairs, the South West Shore Development Authority (SWSDA) and its Nine Municipal Members


Dear Mr. Bishop:
We the undersigned believe that the Department of Economic Development, the nine
municipal governments who sit on SWSDA’s Board and the Department of Municipal
Affairs wittingly and illegally/irregularly permitted SWSDA to operate as an RDA under the Societies Act.

As a result, over the past 12 years many of the safeguards intended and built into the RDA Act have been skirted by SWSDA with significant deleterious financial and development effects on the taxpayers in the Municipality of Shelburne in particular and all of southwestern Nova Scotia in general. In large measure these lost financial and developmental opportunities were possible because this “arrangement” was blessed by government agencies prompting the further erosion of the principal of public accountability and the resulting loss of public control over a public institution.


The South West Shore Development Authority (SWSDA) is incorporated and has operated for some twelve years under the Societies Act rather than the Regional Community Development Act. Operating in this manner has permitted SWSDA, the Department of Economic Development, the Department of Municipal Affairs and the nine Municipal members of SWSDA to circumvent and contravene the provisions, and ignore the safeguards as well as the requirements of the Regional Community Development Act, resulting in the following:


a. RDAs should be incorporated under the appropriate Act - SWSDA is not;
b. the majority of RDA voting Board members should not be municipal representatives - the majority of SWSDA’s Board are municipal representatives (despite this situation, SWSDA claims not to be a municipal body or subject to the MGA);
c. RDA’s are not allowed to own land – SWSDA has been given and owns two major properties, has received mortgage financing from the Department of Economic Development on one of its properties and was recently given property for $1 by Order in Council and $600,000 to maintain it;
d. SWSDA has paid no property transfer tax on either of the properties it has acquired in the Municipality of Shelburne, and while it pays property tax on only one of the two properties it owns, the property tax paid by SWSDA on that one property is returned to SWSDA as a grant each year by the municipality;
e. although municipal governments are not allowed to provide loan guarantees to others, SWSDA has received frequent loan guarantees from all of its municipal members in the past and is now seeking additional guarantees thereby increasing the vulnerability of municipalities;
f. SWSDA’s ownership and management of these properties has resulted in a growing operating deficit of more than $1.5 million as of March 2007;
g. with respect to public accountability, SWSDA operates as a private society requiring Board and staff to sign confidentiality agreements and providing program/project financial reporting in a manner that makes it impossible to determine funding or expenses for any particular project;
h. while core funding reporting provides some details these are also commingled in the chart of accounts in such a manner as to make it impossible to determine the effectiveness, efficiency or economy of use of those resources – SWSDA further maintains that it is not subject to the MGA or FOIPOP, notwithstanding that it receives in excess of 99% of its funding from government, thereby making it difficult to assess audit information provided;
i. since the mid-90s taxpayers in the Municipality of Shelburne have borne the burden of the direct and indirect subsidies to SWSDA by providing grants in return for taxes, providing loans, providing loan guarantees and providing core funding;
j. now SWSDA is proposing that these same taxpayers bail SWSDA out of its deficit to help it out of its insolvency .


The Regional Community Development Act. 1996, c. 29, s. 1. at paragraph 6 provides
the Minister of Economic Development with the authority to establish, by order,
corporate bodies to be regional community development agencies.


Under the definitions section of the Act, it goes further by providing the following definition for Regional Development Agencies incorporated under the Regional Communities Development Act:


3 In this Act,
(a) "agency" means a regional community development organization established pursuant to this Act;


It is important to note that the use of the Societies Act to incorporate certain groups under the Societies Act is purposely restricted and specifically excludes the incorporation of RDAs under the Societies Act. Specifically, paragraph 3. (2) of the Societies Act. R.S., c. 435, s.1 states that:


Where any Act, other than the Companies Act, provides for the incorporation of a society for a particular object, no society shall be incorporated under this Act for that object. R.S., c. 435, s. 3.


Questions


1. Given the provisions for incorporation under the Regional Communities Development Act and the clear restriction in the Society’s Act, is SWSDA entitled to legally be incorporated as a Society?


2. If it is entitled to be incorporated as a Society, is it entitled to call itself a Regional Development Agency (RDA) given the strictures on the use of that term in the Regional Communities Development Act?


3. If it is entitled to be incorporated as a Society under the Societies Act, is it entitled to the funding earmarked and approved for the use of RDAs that is provided under the Community Economic Development Program of the Canada/Nova Scotia COOPERATION Agreement on Economic Diversification.


4. If it is entitled to be incorporated as a Society under the Societies Act, is the SWSDA a municipal body as defined in the MGA?


5. If it is a municipal body, what obligations does SWSDA have respecting the conduct of its annual audit and its chart of accounts?


6. If it is a municipal body, what are the Auditor General’s responsibilities respecting SWSDA’s operations?


7. If it is not a municipal body and it is not an RDA, do taxpayers have any obligation to


provide SWSDA with any financial support?


8. If it is an RDA, how did it become an RDA given the detailed process for the creation and formulation of RDAs found in the Regional Communities Development Act?


9. If SWSDA is an RDA do the strictures related to RDAs found in the Act, provincial guidelines, regulations and official government web sites apply to SWSDA?


10. If they do not, why don’t they?


11. If they do, who is responsible for ensuring that provincial requirements for SWSDA as an RDA are enforced?


12. If SWSDA is an RDA and RDAs are not allowed to own land, should the two properties that were transferred in error to SWSDA by government be returned to the Province and/or the Federal Government?


13. If not, why not.


14. If SWSDA is prohibited from being a Society under the Societies Act and it was never incorporated as an RDA under the Rural Communities Development Act, does it have any legitimate legal status?


As taxpayers, we grow increasingly concerned by the failures of Provincial and Municipal officials to properly manage this portfolio. Their failure to do so has further thrust additional taxes on our communities over the past twelve years and now has created a financial crisis with significant property tax implications in our communities. Your kind assistance would be appreciated. If we can provide additional information please let us know.


Yours very truly,

A. A. Cayer

Timothy Gillespie

Willa Magee

HISTORIC MEETING - INSIDE SCOOP!

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

DEPUTY MINISTER MEETS SWSDA BOARD

On Friday the 11th of December the Deputy Minister met with the Mayors and Wardens from three counties who are responsible for the sound administration of the South West Shore Development Authority. As previously reported, the meeting was to discuss the SWSDA request for $500,000 additional loan guarantee backed by govt. The bail-out is needed because SWSDA is apparently on the brink of bankruptcy. Just before the meeting all voting SWSDA board members received a copy of the long-anticipated Ombudsman's Report, which will certainly be very critical of SWSDA operating and governance practices.

WHAT WAS LIKELY DISCUSSED AT THE MEETING AND SOME POSSIBLE CONCLUSIONS

..... the Province is still unwilling to back the $500,000 with the information they have at hand. Govt sources in Halifax say that requests from the govt for more information have gone unheeded.

..... The Ombudsman's report was likely thorough and almost cerainly responded in detail to the questions asked by Concerned Citizens 30 months ago (see copy here) and the SWSDA board has until January 8th (25 days and counting) to make comments on the report.

.... it is no secret that Board Governance... or should I say a lack of sound Governance by the SWSDA Board members - is a major problem.

WANT TO KNOW MORE?


Ask your Mayor, Warden or Board Member.... they are the ones responsible for fixing the mal-administration of this essential development agency in our midst....Municipal, Provincial and Federal Governments endow them with trust, information and millions of taxpayer dollars each year. The Ombudsman has concluded that management of the organziation needs change...... Find out what our municipal representatives on the Board intend to do about it.... ASK THEM... call, write or stop them on the street.... but ask if you want them to know you are concerned and you care!

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

SWSDA PROJECT REPORT

When SWSDA talks about all the projects they have organized and are running for us, do you know what they are talking about? Well you should.

They account for millions of dollars each year being spent in the name of development for our communities. Take a look at the latest project report for SWSDA and tell me what you see.

For example, does anyone know why the C@P summer students for 2008 are listed on this 2009/2010 report?

Does anyone know.... what the Community Access Society does, why their budget for this year is $55,000 and why they've spent 50% mmore than the entire year's budget after only six months?

And, why C@P projects .... are listed under Business & Investment services?

And do you realize dear reader .... that if you remove the C@P expenses from this category that SWSDA's total Business & Investment portfolio projects for nine municipalities in three counties is less than $80,000!

Oh.... and I haven't begun to ask questions about this Shelburne SoundStage/Park project with a budget of $75,000, no funding identified and no explanation!

SWSDA & The Role of Municipalities

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

MAKING THE RDA ACCOUNTABLE

The Right Honourable Justice Hood in Her Decision about SWSDA says....

"I conclude that SWSDA is 'under the authority of' the participating municipalities."

For some time now I have argued that municipal councils had a special responsibility to monitor, direct and control SWSDA through the representatives of the Municipality that they appointed to the SWSDA Board.

Let me suggest to you that municipalities have failed in this essential duty of sound governance.

Further.... let me suggest to you that after all of its investigative work, the Ombudsman's office will agree.!

In part, I believe that this failure is caused by ..... the manner in which Board members have been misled into believing that certain information about the inner workings of SWSDA was best kept away from elected municipal councils. I recall Pat Nickerson, Paulette Scott and Raymond Davis claiming that they couldn't share information about SWSDA Board meetings because "they were confidential."

As a result, I believe the pattern shows that:

-  the CEO kept secrets from the Board,

- the Executive of SWSDA kept secrets from the full members of SWSDA,

- the Board members and Mr. Anderson kept information secret from Municipal Councils.....

Resulting in .... the public being kept in the dark and decisions being made on behalf of the municipalities and taxpayers without input from elected officials who are responsible and asked to be accountable to the public.

All this dear Reader to suggest that when municipal representatives get a copy of the the Consultative Report from the Ombudsman's Office, they should ensure that their Councils are consulted about its content before the SWSDA Board  and municipal representatives on the Board respond to the Ombudsman.... which I understand they have to do before January 6, 2010.

What do you think?

CAN YOU SPELL EMBARGO?

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

OMBUDSMAN'S REPORT & FINDINGS

SUBMITTED TO GOVERNMENT AND

SWSDA BOARD MEMBERS

Department of Economic and Rural Development and SWSDA Board have 30 days from receipt of the Ombudsman's report to respond before the public will get to see the report.

Want to understand the process? Take a look at the Act.....

http://shelburnecitizendrivendevelopment.blogspot.com/2009/12/ombudsman-act.html

SWSDA Financials as at September 30

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

WHERE'D THE MONEY GO!?!

Ever wonder? Here's SWSDA's Balance Sheet for the first six months of this fiscal year.... to the end of September. Click on it to enlarge....

A quick look shows that SWSDA has some three-quarters of a million dollars in cash and term deposits, $868,333 in receivables (presumably from governments) and a mortgage payable in monthly installments to SWSDA by Sea Coast Entertainment beginning in 5 or 6 months.... Mortgage principle is worth $1,750,000. plus interest to SWSDA..... Along with odds and sods .... total assets of more than $3,405,000.00

Not bad for an organization that keeps complaining about being broke..... but here's the rub!

Accounts payable jumped some $300,000 in just one month to $901, 767.05 .... for what you ask.... ? ? Good Question!

When added to other project accruals.... for this year, Total Project Accruals are more than $1,500,000! Add Demand loans, repayable grants, the Sound Stage Loan guaranteed by the Municipality of Shelburne, amounts owing to the Province of $475,000 from a mortgage on the Base sold by SWSDA in 2008, money owing to Shelburne County Business Development Centre and an item entitled "Deferred Capital Contributions" and total Liabilities are significant having risen more than$70,000 in September alone.....

Gotta love high finance as practiced by "Former Bankers"..... Hate to think what kind of shape Yarmouth Area Industrial Commission is in!!

Abra Kadabra - Its Just a Book Entry!

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

Today's Financial News

Today we are told by ACOA that Core Operational Funding for 2009-2012 has been approved for SWSDA. Here are the numbers... are you sitting down?!?

ACOA Funding  $489,047.00

Total Project Cost $2,370,000.00

Does enyone know what that means?

If you do, send us a note, provide a comment...

I note in the same announcement that the

 Guysborough RDA's funding is in the same ball park...

and they only cover one county with 9,000 people!

And then there is all this talk about how SWSDA needs more liquidity for bridge financing of the projects it manages for us all....

I don't know... but.... when I look at their latest financial report for projects here are the numbers I see....

Total Project Revenues to September 30, 2009

$1,482,498.00

Total Project Expenses to September 30, 2009

$990,068.00

Gee.... am I missing something?

Are project revenues really $492,430 more than Expenses?

So why does SWSDA need a Guarantee from the Province of $500,000?

Certainly not project financing.....??

DO YOU THINK?

Interesting Comments

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

Thank you dear readers for your comments and sharing your thoughts on this stuff. On subject and within legal limits.... great. I understand that Timothy will share his views on some of these comments on his site SCT .... take a look later.

Ed

SWSDA Mid-Year Review

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

VISIT THE YARMOUTH TOWN WEB SITE FOR A COPY

OF SWSDA'S MID-YEAR REVIEW

AND BUDGET

http://townofyarmouth.ca/agenda/files2/00200/231/swsda_2009_2010_mid_year_review.pdf

It makes for interesting reading dear reader. I invite you to share your views with others about the report.

ABOUT OUR 13 RDAs

Talk a Walk on the Wild Side

and Visit our RDA sites....

Annapolis Digby Economic Development Agency

Web: http://www.annapolisdigby.com/

Antigonish Regional Development Authority
Web: http://www.antigonishrda.ns.ca/

Cape Breton County Economic Development Authority

Web: http://www.cbceda.org/

Colchester Regional Development Agency
Web: http://www.corda.ca/

Cumberland Regional Economic Development Association
Web: http://www.creda.net/

Greater Halifax Partnership

Web: http://www.greaterhalifax.com/

Guysborough County Regional Development Authority

Web: http://www.gcrda.ns.ca/

Hants Regional Development Authority

Web: http://www.hantscounty.com/

Kings Regional Development Agency

Web: http://www.kingsrda.ca/

Lunenburg Queens Regional Development Agency

Web: http://www.lqrda.ns.ca/

Pictou Regional Development Commission

Web: http://www.prdc.com/

South West Shore Development Authority
Web: http://www.swsda.com/

YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME

THANK YOU FOR SHARING

YOUR THOUGHTS

This blog is about making publicly funded organizations more accountable and documenting why they should be and when they aren't. Your comments are welcome and will be published as long as they are civil and focused on the issues relevant to the objective of this blog.

Contribution from Anonymous

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

The Blame Game....

Moments ago one of my readers wrote a lengthy comment much of which had nothing to do with the issue of SWSDA Accountability..... which is what this blog is about.

However, I wanted to share with my readers Anon 3.53's thoughts of relevance to this blog.

Anon,  your suggestion that I not rant "... as it will not serve you well." is interesting and I thank you for it.... It helps to put the rest of your comments in context. Anon 3:53 went on to suggest that Mr. Hardy might be excused from doing his job properly and obeying the law because "... he answers to the Mayor..." adding that blame should be put in its proper place and that I should "... not brow beat the innocent."

First let me deal with the substantive portion of Anon 3:53's comments that are relevant to this blog about SWSDA Accountability. First, I wrote about Mr. Hardy because it is exactly his kind of behaviour yesterday that in my view has permitted SWSDA to become a rogue organization over the past fourteen years.

As far as I know, Mr. Hardy is his own man, employed in a senior position of trust by the taxpayers and citizens of this community and paid reasonably well to do the job. He is hardly the "innocent" suggested by Anon 3.53... It is his decision alone to do or not do his job as the law requires him. No Employer can oblige you to do things that are wrong, or ignore or subvert the spirit and/or the intent of the law. No Employer.... and certainly no Mayor. What Mr. Hardy did yesterday was wrong. Plain and simple.... in my view.... and if his employer wants him to do things like that, Mr Hardy has a responsibility to advise his superior that the action he has been directed to take is wrong and he won't do it. May not be easy... but that would be the right decision and action to take.

As for Mayor Delaney, I don't even know if he is aware that this is being done in the name of the Town or how many hours a day he is actually spending in the office or working on Town affairs given his state of health. No dear Anon 3:53.... can't buy your argment ... but thank you for providing another perspective!

Two Sides to Every Coin

REPLY TO ANON 6:49

Dear Anon 6:49..... The arguments you pose for withholding information from the public, contrary to the intent of the Freedom of Information Act have been used to abuse the system before.

1. I believe that if correspondence has been sent to any municipality for a decision of council, it should be forwarded to councillors immediately.... not hoarded by theMayor/Warden and the Clerk/CAO until the next meeting of council.

2. If councillors are sent correspondence received by the municipality, when it is received, public access to these documents should be ensured as stipulated in the Municipal Government Act.

Otherwise, how can they consult with taxpayers and voters before reaching a decision about a subject that did not come up in the last election..... do they really need more time than the average citizen to digest the document... and do they have to come  to a conclusion about it before they've consulted the great unwashed masses and before they meet and hear the views of other members of council?

The purpose of this legislation is to provide an opportunity for informed public participation in the management of our communities. Any actions in my view that subvert that intention as spelled out in the Municipal Government Act is wrong.....

In my humble opinion... I would like to think that Brian Holland and Kirk Cox would make the document available to the public if asked .... however, since I live in the Town and my taxes pay a part of Mr. Hardy's salary I would have hoped that he would have done the honourable thing by a local taxpayer... he didn't!

No.... dear Anon 6:49... you're entitled to your views..... but... I don't buy your logic.

OBSTRUCTION ... YOUR NAME IS FAILURE!

THE TIMES THEY ARE A CHANGING!

Well dear reader.... my faith in the good guys winning has been renewed .... after my rampage this afternoon about what I viewed as Wilmont Hardy's efforts to subvert my rights and ignore his legal and moral obligations respecting access to public documents I embarked on a plan to rectify the situation....

It wasn't long before I received a copy of the very letter Wilmont had decided to deprive me of .....  from another source in the leaky SWDSA support boat ... abusing citizens' rights to access to information and informed participation.

First.... let me thank the ethical Board or staff member of SWSDA who leaked the document.

Second.... let me share with you why getting this document before the December 1st meeting of municipal politicians is so critical.

You probably do not know that many of our Councillors have not been provided with a copy of the letter in question. To my knowledge, no Council in Shelburne County has as yet had a fullsome, informed discussion about the letter or detemined what action if any they might take in response to Mr. Anderson's demands.

YET .... next Tuesday they are scheduled to come together to discuss what to do about creating a new RDA...NOW I ASK YOU.... WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE!?!

Come on Mayors, Wardens CAOs and Clerks.... make copies of this letter and let's get it on a public agenda for discussion as quickly as possible....... so we can have an informed public discussion about this important issue that may shape public dialogue and action respecting socio-economic development here at home for a number of years to come. Public input muight even prove beneficial in guiding your decision-making

LET US FINALLY CUT OUT THE MALEVOLENT SECRECY THAT HAS PLAGUED OUR COMMUNITIES FOR FAR TOO LONG....!!

ps... Tomorrow I'll publish the letter that Wilmont Hardy refused to give me today..... gotta love the sweet irony ..... with thanks to our sources..... I now prepare for my nightly retirement with a clear conscience and a renewed faith in the inherent goodness of human kind!

Ed

!!! OBSTRUCTION !!!

YOUR NAME IS WILMONT HARDY

Next Tuesday, elected officials in Shelburne County will meet to begin discussions about the future RDA that will service municipalities and communities in Shelburne County. When they do, I am told, they will do so facing a letter from Mr. Anderson of SWSDA fame, demanding that each municipality pledge their future alliance and allegiance to SWSDA as each municipality's choice of RDA for the future. They have been told by Mr. Anderson that they have until December 11 to do so.

Now..... I am reporting this information third hand or fourth hand because I haven't seen the letter from Mr. Anderson. It would be nice to have a copy so that I can share it with my dear readers and communicate my views on the subject to those elected officials whose salaries I pay - before they meet December 1st. However, I am told by Mr. Hardy our erstwhile Town Clerk that I must wait until the day after the December 1 meeting of elected officials, "because Council has not yet reviewed the letter."

As I explained to Mr. Hardy, the law is clear. The public has a right to see or have a copy of any letter in the possession of the Municipality, when it receives the letter. Of course, there are limited exceptions for withholding documents, however this document doesn't fall into any excluded category.

However, to provide municipalities with the necessary time to determine if documents should be withheld, the law provides municipalities with up to 30 days to respond to a request for information. The use of this clause by Mr. Hardy to withold this document until some later date (he said I could have it after the Council meeting on December 2nd) is wrong and contrary to the intent of the law. Further, it is a clear, unadulterated abuse of a position of trust given to those like Mr. Hardy who are entrusted with the responsibility to apply the law correctly and justly.

Of course, I shouldn't be surprised at Mr. Hardy's disregard for his responsibilities to the citizens he is paid to serve. He is the same fella who has the temerity to charge $0.50 a page for copies of documents provided by the Town of Shelburne, when the law clearly states that municipalities are only allowed to charge the actual cost of making a copy. When I pointed that out to Mr. Hardy some time ago he smiled and said that was not the way he interpreted the law.

LITTLE WONDER CITIZENS FEEL DISENFRANCHISED

SWSDA Finances September 30, 2009

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

Highlights From SWSDA's

Latest Comparative Balance Sheet

At at 9/30/2009 and 8/31/2009

Total Accounts Receivable

9/30/2009 ... $887,333.61

8/31/2009 ... $906,921.66

Total Current Assets

9/30/2009 ... $3,405,285.46

8/31/2009 ... $3,398,018.48

Accounts Payable

9/30/2009 ... $901,767.05

8/31/2009 ... $604,589.42

Total Liabilities

9/30/2009 ... $3,792,160.18

8/31/2009 ... $3,718,895.88

SWSDA Project Report Shelburne County

September 30, 2009

Shelburne Sound Stage

Budget ..... $75,000.00

Expenses...$27,768.00

Shelburne Tourism

Budget ..... $140,000.00

Expenses ..$13,588.00

Shelburne JCP

Budget ..... $ 48,500.00

Expenses ...$21,527.00

Does anyone know what the Shelburne Sound Stage Project is and who is paying for it?

CONCERNED CITIZENS RDA MEETING

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS OFF TO A GOOD START

Last night's public meeting drew a crowd of more than 60 interested Shelburne County Citizens including a good cross-section of citizens, business leaders and politicians from across the county. Will write more over the weekend.... prior commitments today.

Follow-up on this story will be posted to the http://www.shelburnedevelopment.blogspot.com/ site.

And of course for the news angle on this story go to Timothy Gillespie's site http://www.shelburnecountytoday.com/

Six More Days to Vote!

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

88% WANT PUBLIC INPUT!!

Today's new survey question generates near unanimity amongst voters for public input in defining the new RDA.

Have you voted? Only six more days left to record your views and respond to the survey.

Check it out ... just to the left of this posting.

New Survey Question

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

Have you taken a moment to express your views on our new survey question?

Answers About SPDA

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

The Shelburne Park Development Agency (SPDA)

Dear Reader,

In the mid-90s the Federal Government was eager to dispose of many of their former naval bases in Nova Scotia. They did so by encouraging the establishment of local non-profit groups to administer dollars set aside for transforming these former military facilities into local development sites. Monies set aside for this purpose were funneled through ACOA and was administered by these local groups.

In the case of the former Shelburne Naval Station, I am told some $5 million dollars plus the old base at the entrance to Shelburne Harbour was handed to SPDA's Board of Directors. In 1999, SPDA transfered all of its assets to SWSDA and ceased to exist.

In the coming months a lot of information will become available at trial about SPDA and SWSDA's management of these assets and local development efforts. Believe me.... I could write a book.

Until then, I am not at liberty to share that information with readers since most of it was acquired as part of the discovery process in Ocean Produce International's litigation with SWSDA. As it is disclosed at trial I will publish further details that I've unearthed about SPDA/SWSDA's use of these resources.

For the reader who keeps asking for details about SPDA .... I guess you'll just have to wait along with everyone else. Your only alternative is to bypass this blog and go directly to the horse's mouth and make application to ACOA or SWSDA under Freedom of Information for the information you are seeking. They are the only two bodies I know of who hold these original files and managed these monies and resources. ... Sorry I can't be more helpful.

Dear Anonymous 5:04

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

Can't publish your comments with the word "illegal" in them. Remove word and re-submit if you want me to post.

Still Pushing on the Rope!

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

NERVE... WITH A CAPITAL N!!

You will recall that in August,  Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations' Mr. Wills pointed out to Mr. Anderson that as an RDA SWSDA was not allowed to own land and as a Municipal Body its financing had to be approved by the Minister and provided under the Municipal Finance Act.

Here is Mr. Anderson's reply.... it speaks volumes about Mr. Anderson's and his ability to twist facts to accommodate his view of the world. The legislation is clear as is Justice Hood's decision of last November. Any body, including a Society whose Board is effectively controlled by representatives of Municipal Governments is a "Municipal Body" by definition and subject to the Freedom of Information provisions of the Municipal Government Act.

Try as he might... you can't change what you've been in the past....  if it looks like a duck, mates with a duck, flies like a duck, sheds duck feathers and eats from the ducks' dish... it is considered a duck.......

Of course Mr. Anderson indicates that SWSDA's well paid lawyers don't agree!!

Surprise... Surprise...! Mr. Anderson also assured his Board of Directors for more than two years that SWSDA's lawyers said that SWSDA was not subject to the Freedom of Information provisions of the Municipal Government Act....

Guess they were wrong then.... wonder if they're wrong again?!?

More later!!!

Getting SWSDA Accountability Going Again

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

Dear Readers,

 As you may or may not know ..... I recently started a business and economic development consulting company here in Shelburne called Strategic Perspectives Consulting Associates and its been busy since last January.

In addition .... I am a Director and agent for a Nova Scotia company called International Resource Development Corporation with its office here in Shelburne and its headquarters in Montreal. Last January  the President of IRDC and I put together an international consortium with companies in England, Denmark and Holland and bid on a major standing offer contract with the government of Canada ..... we've just been advised that we were successful and been selected to sign a multi-year contract with the Canadian International Development Agency. This morning I finished the draft operational contract for our consortium and its now on its way to our partners. We expect work under the contract to start early in the new year.

And... I am President of an internet radio station in Alberta that my son Kirk and his wife now operate as Leduc County's Home Radio Station...you can listen at http://www.leducradio.com/ . Last week we celebrated our first year of operation.

Finally....  Ocean Produce International is in the last stages of preperation for our lawsuit against SWSDA. This litigation has been going on for ten years and trial is scheduled to begin January 18th, 2010 for four weeks in Halifax. As you can imagine Willa and I've been intimately involved on a daily basis with trial preperation and will be for the next few months.

All this to explain why I haven't been posting as much as some of you would like!! I promise to make an effort to post at least once a week until we get to trial... but I expect posts will be short. ... Your patience in the interim is greatly appreciated.

Ed

Listen to Lawyer's Presentation

On Tuesday the 13th of October I attended a meeting of the Municipality of Barrington's Council meeting and I recorded the following parts of that meeting.

1.  Presentation by Attorney C. Nickerson on the Municipal Government Act, SWSDA and YAIC (5m)

2. Intervention from the audience. (800kb)

3. Council consideration of a request from SWSDA for a comfort and support letter to Minister Paris for a loan guarantee of $500,000 and disposal of the $1.75 million mortgage SWSDA now holds on the former Shelburne Naval Base. (2.5 m)

Note to readers. So here's the problem!!!

I make use of Google's free blog technology because it is relatively simple to use. However, simplicity imposes limits on what you can do with the technology. One of the things I haven't figured out is how to put tape recordings on my blogs.

Sooo.... I am reduced to the following offer. Go to Timothy's Web page or click on the following address...
http://www.shelburnecountytoday.com/docs/nickerson.mp3 to listen to the first of these recordings.

Alternatively..... If you are interested in receiving a copy of any or all of these recordings please send me a note telling me which one or ones you want to copy for your files at aacayer@gmail.com and I will forward a copy to you.

SWSDA Audited Financial Statement 2008/2009

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

JUST FOR YOU DEAR READER

Following is the subject statement. My comments to follow in the coming days. (You may have to print them to truly be able to understand them.)

SWSDA Minutes

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

SWSDA's Minutes from their June 17, 2009 meeting recently appeared on their web site at www.swsda.com/index.php?=know

Lots of in camera stuff and lots of items where you have to read between the lines.... Take a look.

Hard to believe ... that SWSDA is a "municipal body" .... or a real RDA working for the benefit of its member municipalities, accountable to taxpayers who are paying the freight.

NO TAXPAYER GUARANTEES FOR SWSDA DEBT

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

MUNICIPAL SERVICES & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

GET IT RIGHT!

For a number of years, SWSDA has supplemented contributions to SWSDA's core funding in creative ways. In addition to core funding grants, municipalities have fronted SWSDA expenditures with line of credit guarantees exceeding $500,000 per year. They have also contributed additional grants to SWSDA funding initiatives and guaranteed loans provided to SWSDA by the Royal Bank for specific projects. Recently, SWSDA tried again to pry its fingers into municipal pockets by seeking to get municipalities to increase their line of credit guarantees from $500,000 to $750,000. That plan back-fired when municipal watchdogs found out and pointed out to municipalities that it was illegal for municipalities to provide these guarantees.

SWSDA's fallback position was to convince municipalities to provide the extra $250,000 as "repayable grants", (which they did last year and that quarter of a million dollars is now listed as a payable on SWSDA's books). The new $250,000 in grants plus the existing $500,000 in guarantees now brought the total in additional cash provided to SWSDA to three-quarters of a million dollars. That $250,000 has now been spent by SWSDA and the most recent accounting indicates that the majority of the guarantee has been spent also.

This creative financing approach ... was sold by SWSDA as an interim step while SWSDA arranged to get the Province to change the law to enable municipalities to legally provide guarantees for RDAs.  I wrote recently about that initiative when I provided you dear reader with a copy of a letter from Mr. Anderson to M. Wills who works for Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations.

In his letter ... copied by Mr. anderson to Mayors and Wardens in Yarmouth and Shelburne Counties and the Municipality of Clare, Mr. Anderson provided a purported response from the former Minister of Municipal Affairs implying that the government was working on a way to accomodate a resolution passed by the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities seeking a change in the legislation to permit these guarantees by municipalities.

Here is Mr. Wills reply to Mr. Anderson.... His reply is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, Mr. Wills raises the issue that if these guarantees are to be provided by municipalities SWSDA would have to be a "municipal body". Mr. Wills points out that if that happened, SWSDA would only be able to "...borrow from the Municipal Finance Corporation...." and its borrowings would be regulated by the Municipal Finance Corporation Act.

Moreover, Mr. Wills points out that borrowings of this type would only be provided for capital projects and would require Ministerial approval of each guarantee. He also points out that under the Regional Community Development Act, RDAs are not allowed to "... buy, sell and own property..." something Richard Hurlburt and the previous government failed to enforce. Indeed, successive Conservative governments turned a blind eye to the laws of the province thereby enabling the continuing flaunting of our laws by SWSDA and our municipalities.

What a pleasure... watching a government enforcing the laws we are supposed to live under. Gee... it might even give one confidence that some day we can sort out this mess! Thanks Mr. Wills and the Department of Economic Development.

SWSDA Comparative Accounts July 31, 2009

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

SOME ... ANSWERS TO EARLIER FINANCIAL QUESTIONS

While this report doesn't answer all of the questions one might have about SWSDA's finances and in fact some of the information might be mis-leading.... it does open the door a smidge.... and actually raises other questions.

For example, the RBC Dominion Securities  Investments I believe represent the monies SWSDA was forced to set aside in accordance with the Consent Order flowing from the Fraudulent Conveyance action on the Boys School brought by OPI in 1997 against SWSDA. What isn't clear is why monies that were supposed to have been deposited in a segregated interest bearing bank account or GIC have not accrued any interest since March 31, 2009 according to this statement. It is also unclear why SWSDA has set up an RBC Investment Cash Account with some of these monies from the Boys School in contravention of the requirements of the Consent Order. Also, it is unclear how come the item listing the Shelburne Boys School Accrual is different than the Investments referred to under Assets and why the amount has not changed between March 31, 2009 and July 31, 2009.

According to this statement it appears that taxpayers in our municipalities on July 31st this year were on the hook for some $375,000 ( $165,000) more than at March 31, 2009 through our guarantees of SWSDA's operating line. Add to that the $200,000 we taxpayers have provided in grants that are re-payable by SWSDA and the $84,105 guarantee provided by the Municipal taxpayers of Shelburne and used by SWSDA for the cost overun on the Sound Stage built under Mr. MacDonnell's corporate supervision and we can now see the tip of the iceberg of taxpayer indebtedness that we know about driven by SWSDA's activities.... and we haven't seen the Audited Financial Statements for last year yet .. even though the fiscal year is more than half over. Click on the statement below to enlarge.

THIS MORNING'S QUESTION ABOUT YOU AND SWSDA!

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

Do you know how much of the line of credit used by SWSDA is outstanding today?

Do you know if SWSDA's account is overdrawn today... and if it is, do you know by how much?

Do you know that each of us as taxpayers have guaranteed and or financed SWSDA's overdraft and line of credit through our municipal participation on the Board of Directors of SWSDA?

Do you know that Mr Anderson alone can decide how much of that overdraft he uses at any given point in time without first getting approval from taxpayers or our representatives on the Board?

Do you know if your representative on the Board of SWSDA can tell you the status today of SWSDA's line of credit or overdraft obligations and our municipality's and by extension, your share of these accounts?

HALF THE FISCAL YEAR IS GONE!

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

AND STILL

NO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

FROM SWSDA!

Let's see..... the end of the fiscal year is March 31, 2009..... and we are now six months into the fiscal year .... so why  hasn't the SWSDA financial statement for 2008/2009 been filed with the registry of joint stocks?

I thought Mr. Anderson was an ex-banker and fully cognizant of all things financial..... I guess the emphasis should be on the "ex" part of ex-banker!

In the interim, an organization with significant financial problems is left to drift by our elected officials and municipal councils..... their corporate and personal fiduciary obligations ignored in the wake of an increasing chorus of voices asking questions and demanding audits.

QUESTION 1 !

WILL DIRECTORS' LIABILITY INSURANCE COVER MEMBERS OF BOARDS OF DIRECTORS WHO IGNORE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO MONITOR AND HOLD ACCOUNTABLE MEMBERS OF STAFF AND THE EXECUTIVE?!?

QUESTION 2 !

ARE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FAILURE OF THEIR REPRESENTATIVES ON THE SWSDA BOARD TO EXERCISE THEIR FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITIES?!?

QUESTION 3 !

ARE PROFESSIONALS LIKE ACCOUNTANTS AND LAWYERS BURDENED WITH A HIGHER LEVEL OF OBLIGATIONS FOR ENSURING THE FISCAL AND LEGAL CORRECTNESS OF THE ORGANIZATIONS THEY SERVE AS MEMBERS OF A BOARD OR EXECUTIVE?!?

ITS YOUR FAULT!

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

NOW, DO YOU FEEL BETTER?

Who cares whose fault it is.... IMHO ....  it is now time for us to turn the page, resolve not to make the same mistakes and find solutions that will work for us and our kids and grandkids....

"DISSIPATED: GOTTEN RID OF; WASTED, DISPERSED"

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

SWSDA WORKING ON MORTGAGES ?

In November 2007 ... SWSDA's CEO submitted a sworn Affidavit to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. In the Affidavit he claimed that SWSDA had, between July and November 2007, "dissipated" more than a quarter of a million dollars that was left in the Maintenance Fund after the Boys School was sold in June as well as the $550,000 received from the sale.

As a result of this declaration by SWSDA .... the parties to the Fraudulent Conveyance case agreed that SWSDA was to replace the Boys School's "dissipated funds" (the unspent portion of the $625,000 Maintenance Fund + $550,000 + interest going back a number of years) by using the proceeds from the sale of the Former Naval Base when it was sold and the Court so ordered SWSDA to set aside these funds.

Fast forward  more than a year later to March 2008 when the Base was sold....

It would appear... that SWSDA received less than a million in cash from the sale of the Base and $716,000 of that was set aside to satisfy the court order. In addition, SWSDA quickly moved $150,000 to pay off a loan held by the Yarmouth Area Industrial Commission. The RDA now holds a mortgage on the Base of $1.75 million which it has been trying to sell off at a discount to others including the Provincial Government so that it can get its hands on a more liquid form of asset.... cash! (Now Mr. Anderson's briefing of the SWSDA Board at their May meeting about SEACOAST and their prospects makes sense!!!)

Now we hear on the grapevine ... that even the disappearing government of Rodney MacDonald wouldn't bite that poison fruit in its final six months in power... but ever peristent Mr. Anderson .... we understand is pitching municipal members of his Board of Directors and the new provincial government to reconsider and take the mortgage off his hands and give him cash.

I guess holding a mortgage for $1.75 million whose terms provide for delayed payment is like having a gold credit card where you've exceeded both the total and daily credit limit.....is it burning a hole in Mr. Anderson's pocket? Seems that way!

Additions To Blog

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

You may have noticed some additions to this blog today. On the left hand side of the blog there is now a clickable link to two other blogs (one is a new blog called Shelburne Development that I am launching today ) and Timothy Gillespie's ever- popular and recently resuscitated Shelburne County Today. Adding this makes it easier for readers to move from one to the other.

I have also added a survey question tool that you can monitor as folks vote.... should be interesting.

Hope you enjoy it.

Who's Counting!?!

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

FYI......... As of midnight last night this blog, started in mid-May has logged 59,896 page views
and 10,551 visits.

I invite you to add your thoughts to mine and those of other readers by providing your comments or thoughts. This blog is about the issues surrounding RDA Accountability in the past and in the future. Our ability to be informed about the past and present is essential for us to prepare and enhance our ability to manage the future.

Please take a moment and share your thoughts with our readers.

Proposed RDA Workshop Discussion

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

Dear Reader.... Please go to http://www.shelburnecitizendrivendevelopment.blogspot.com/ for this discussion....

ACCOUNTABILITY ... IN CAPITAL LETTERS!

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

THREE MONTHS LATER

In the Minutes of the May 27 meeting ow SWSDA a number of questions were asked.... some reportedly answered and/or discussed by the Board with others to be answered later. Below is a list of those reportedly clarified, answered and/or discussed with Board members.

1. "Status of operating funds from ACOA and Economic Development Requirement to register under the RDA act to receive operational funding (in progress) "

Question: Can any of those in attendance tell the great unwashed public what they were told and what discussion if any ensued respecting operational funding and the requirement for SWSDA to register under the RDA Act?

2. "... status provided for several projects ..."

Question: Can any of those in attendance tell the public what they were told and what discussion if any ensued respecting the status of any and all projects currently being managed by SWSDA and in particular what was the Status of Shelburne County projects?

3. "... $716,858 invested from the sale of the Shelburne Youth Centre ..."

Question: Can any of those in attendance tell the us what they were told and what discussion if any ensued respecting the status of the funds invested from the sale of the Shelburne Youth Centre and in particular where has the money been invested, what interest rates are being paid and what interest has accrued to the investment since it was made, when was it made, and how was the amount to be invested determined?

4. "Process for hiring consultants explained... "

Question: Can any of those in attendance tell us what they were told and what discussion if any ensued respecting the process for hiring consultants and where a written copy of that process can be found?

5. "Clarification provided on mortgage outstanding for sale of Shelburne Park and repayment terms ..."

Question: Can any of those in attendance tell us what they were told and what discussion if any ensued respecting the mortgage outstanding for the sale of Shelburne Park and repayment terms?

6. " Discussion of travel expense process... "

Question: Can any of those in attendance tell us what they were told and what discussion if any ensued respecting SWSDA's travel expense process and where a written copy describing this process can be found, as well as a description of the process for attribution of travel expenses to various core and project budgets?

BTW: At the May meeting it was reported that the "Request for financial info on Shelburne Park will require clearance from solicitors as a court case is pending."

If that information has been provided to Board members would one of those in attendance please provide a copy. On the other hand, if it has not been provided, Board members should insist on this information before they accept the new financial statements at the September meeting of the Board and the AGM.

** (In attendance at the meeting were the following people....
Voting... Rod Rose, Phil LeBlanc, Phil Mooney, Heather MacDonald (alternate for Municipality of Yarmouth) Rachel Pictou (representing the Acadia First Nation), Sherman Embree, Elizabeth Acker, Cecil Brannon, Alonzo Townsend (alternate for Town of Lockeport), Louise Halliday
Non-voting... Doris Swaine (alternate for Municipality of Shelburne), Elizabeth Rhuland (alternate for Town of Shelburne), Donna LeBlanc-Messenger (alternate for Municipality of Barrington), Robert Maillet, Calvin Butler, Bryan Smith ( special assistant to Richard Hurlburt), Stéphane Cyr, Pat Melanson, Clyde DeViller, Michelle Blinn, Frank Anderson and David Warner.)

Great Meeting Bodes Well for Future

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

SHELBURNE MEETING WITH MINISTERS

PERCY PARIS & STERLING BELLIVEAU

For those of you who couldn't attend, this morning's meeting between the two ministers and municipal officials was well attended and observed by some 25 citizens. CBC television and a reporter from the local Coast Guard newspaper also were present.

Municipal officials each had an opportunity to identify priorities in each of their communities and Minister Paris provided those assembled with assurances that the new government placed a high priority on face to face communications and focused efforts to help rural communities with their development efforts.

All in all..... I think it was a good first meeting and gave local officials, as well as residents, an opportunity to take the measure of our new government and for these two ministers to conclude that they and their colleagues should come to Shelburne County more often.......

Gawd..... Does it Ever End?!?

-------- Your tax dollars at work ---------

Here's a decision everyone should read..... http://townofyarmouth.ca/agenda/files2/00200/217/request_for_decision_prepayment_to_yaic.pdf


Read this carefully dear reader..... and ask yourself why the three CAO's joining the Audit Committee and chairing the audit committee is an integral part of this decision....... YAIC is broke.... the same organization run by Mr. Anderson and his supportive Board of Directors... in fact in some instances the same characters running SWSDA..

Read Shelburne County Today for details and the search by Yarmouth County municipalities for transparency or go to the URL above to read the background document......and pass it on to those who still believe that Mr. Anderson and SWSDA should manage anything in Shelburne County.